As DM I would still require an ability check to discern that your opponent was in the process of casting Counterspell which takes only an instant, and also react in time to cast your own counterspell as a reaction to such a fast spell. (see longer post above) Sure the RAW allows this, but the RAW still requires the Counterspell caster to "see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell." The DC would depend on the circumstances. It could be CON for concentration, or DEX to pause the fireball casting and quickly complete your own somatic gesture in time, or WIS to perceive the spell was being cast since it takes a fraction of a second to cast. My point is, successfully fulfilling the Counterspell prerequisites of seeing the casting of a reaction spell (as opposed to one that takes a full action), taking your reaction during another spell casting, and doing it fast enough, shouldn't be automatic.
As DM I would still require an ability check to discern that your opponent was in the process of casting Counterspell which takes only an instant, and also react in time to cast your own counterspell as a reaction to such a fast spell. (see longer post above) Sure the RAW allows this, but the RAW still requires the Counterspell caster to "see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell." The DC would depend on the circumstances. It could be CON for concentration, or DEX to pause the fireball casting and quickly complete your own somatic gesture in time, or WIS to perceive the spell was being cast since it takes a fraction of a second to cast. My point is, successfully fulfilling the Counterspell prerequisites of seeing the casting of a reaction spell (as opposed to one that takes a full action), taking your reaction during another spell casting, and doing it fast enough, shouldn't be automatic.
You only get 1 reaction per round, so there should be no problem with allowing someone to use their reaction automatically in this situation.
Honestly, as DM I wouldn't let it happen. The way I see it you are doing more than just Somatic, you're channeling magic into a desired effect. You can't just begin a new channel in the middle of an old one. Regardless on limbs, Magic is mind-based and focused based in almost every incarnation in fantasy. Also I find the idea of two-spellcasters working together to protect eachother's spelllcasts appealing, and the idea of "who casts first wins" to be against the spirit and concept of counterspell itself.
And you haven't used a bonus spell yet. Because the text for bonus spell specifically disqualifies casting another spell on this turn. You could counterspell after your turn of course.
The reason I created this thread was to specifically point this out.
I cast healing word on my dying ally. Boss counterspells it. I can't counter his counterspell because it's still my turn (healing word is a bonus action spell which disqualifies me from casting any other spell, except a cantrip, on my turn).
Honestly, as DM I wouldn't let it happen. The way I see it you are doing more than just Somatic, you're channeling magic into a desired effect. You can't just begin a new channel in the middle of an old one. Regardless on limbs, Magic is mind-based and focused based in almost every incarnation in fantasy. Also I find the idea of two-spellcasters working together to protect eachother's spelllcasts appealing, and the idea of "who casts first wins" to be against the spirit and concept of counterspell itself.
It is a somatic-only spell with a casting time of 1 reaction - this almost sounds like it is the shortest ever hand wave for a smell; and one small deviation of "the weave" doesn't stop you finishing your cast on the original spell. (at least not according to raw).
You can't just begin a new channel in the middle of an old one.
Absolutely nothing says that's what you're doing if you counterspell a counterspell to protect your own cast
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It is a somatic-only spell with a casting time of 1 reaction - this almost sounds like it is the shortest ever hand wave for a smell; and one small deviation of "the weave" doesn't stop you finishing your cast on the original spell. (at least not according to raw).
I wouldn't allow that either. I don't think you can do anything else in the middle of casting a spell, never mind casting another spell.
On top of that, with the same logic, because counterspell says "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." the initial Counterspell would be over almost instantaneously so there is no way you could possibly react to it while it's in the process of casting.
As DM I would still require an ability check to discern that your opponent was in the process of casting Counterspell which takes only an instant, and also react in time to cast your own counterspell as a reaction to such a fast spell. (see longer post above) Sure the RAW allows this, but the RAW still requires the Counterspell caster to "see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell." The DC would depend on the circumstances. It could be CON for concentration, or DEX to pause the fireball casting and quickly complete your own somatic gesture in time, or WIS to perceive the spell was being cast since it takes a fraction of a second to cast. My point is, successfully fulfilling the Counterspell prerequisites of seeing the casting of a reaction spell (as opposed to one that takes a full action), taking your reaction during another spell casting, and doing it fast enough, shouldn't be automatic.
You only get 1 reaction per round, so there should be no problem with allowing someone to use their reaction automatically in this situation.
Sure, using your reaction is fine, and sure it could be "automatic" that you could indeed say "I use my reaction to cast counterspell to negate the other caster's counterspell." If you have a reaction to use, you can use it of course. But again my point is that using your reaction to cast counterspell to the first counterspell should not automatically succeed, but should rather be based on your ability to see and react quick enough to succeed. You can cast it, but you'd need to roll an ability check to succeed in casting it in time. Casting a spell that requires 1 action would be easy to cast a counterspell against, because it takes a long time (relatively speaking) to cast, and counterspell is just the wave of a hand in some somatic gesture. But seeing the counterspell (a very quick spell, almost an instant to cast) and in turn reacting fast enough to cast it successfully would require some ability check. My point is that as a DM I would be within rights to require an ability check for the counterspell to a counterspell, due to the former's very short casting time. What kind of ability check would be up to the circumstances. If the counterspell were being cast by the same spellcaster whose spell the other counterspell is being foiled it would be very difficult. Probably still difficult, but less so, with a third spell caster seeing someone casting counterspell to foil an ally's spell.
It is a somatic-only spell with a casting time of 1 reaction - this almost sounds like it is the shortest ever hand wave for a smell; and one small deviation of "the weave" doesn't stop you finishing your cast on the original spell. (at least not according to raw).
I wouldn't allow that either. I don't think you can do anything else in the middle of casting a spell, never mind casting another spell.
On top of that, with the same logic, because counterspell says "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." the initial Counterspell would be over almost instantaneously so there is no way you could possibly react to it while it's in the process of casting.
I disagree. I think you could use your reaction to cast counterspell in the middle of casting a spell, because the RAW allows it. Casting a spell like fireball takes 1 action, and you still have a reaction in which to cast counterspell to negate a counterspell that has been cast and that you see in time to react. It is possible. Assuming you see the counterspell being cast (this depends on the situation), there would still be some way that you could possibly react to it while its in the process of casting. But my point as I outlined above is that casting a counterspell to a counterspell while in the middle of casting another spell should be exceedingly difficult to pull off successfully and in time. Counterspell enjoys automatic success against a 3rd level spell or below, and if 4th level or higher it requires an ability check using the spellcaster's spellcasting ability with DC being 10 plus the spell level. But that is dependent on 1) the spellcaster seeing the spell in the middle of casting; and 2) being fast enough to cast a spell using reaction when the spell you're trying to foil is also being cast as fast as a reaction. I would rule in a counterspell versus counterspell situation when the spellcaster is also in the middle of casting a spell, that the second counterspell would need an ability check. What kind of ability check?
CON: Maybe. But this has more to do with concentrating on the initial spell that's being foiled. So maybe not the right ability check to employ
WIS: Maybe. But this has to do with perceiving that the counterspell is being cast against your spell in time, and that is already assumed as part of the Counterspell definition (Counterspell requires 1 reaction "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell." Depending on the entire circumstance, a WIS perception check might be necessary to determine whether the spellcaster can "see" the casting of the very fast counterspell in action.
DEX: Maybe. This one makes the most sense to me. If you get to a DEX ability check you're already presuming the spellcaster has seen a creature within 60 feet casting a counterspell to try to foil the one they are casting at the moment. Perhaps the DM has assumed the spellcaster can see it, or they require a WIS perception check. But then you must react in time to stop the in-process counterspell from taking effect (instantaneous). A simple DEX ability check could be required. Perhaps the DM even gives some credit for an Arcana skill to add a person's proficiency bonus to it (DEX Arcana) if they have that skill. The DC in my view should be DC20. It is "hard" to do.
Counterspell isn't designed specifically for action spells. Forcing an ability check to perform a basic action that the character is highly experienced in is ridiculous. Being a DC 20 is even more so.
It is a somatic-only spell with a casting time of 1 reaction - this almost sounds like it is the shortest ever hand wave for a smell; and one small deviation of "the weave" doesn't stop you finishing your cast on the original spell. (at least not according to raw).
I wouldn't allow that either. I don't think you can do anything else in the middle of casting a spell, never mind casting another spell.
On top of that, with the same logic, because counterspell says "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." the initial Counterspell would be over almost instantaneously so there is no way you could possibly react to it while it's in the process of casting.
While a DM could rule this way if they want, nothing in the rules prevents a creature from counterspelling a counterspell against its own original spell; the only exception is if you have cast a bonus action spell (as you can only cast cantrips as actions on the same turn once you have, so this would prevent reaction casting on your turn).
It's also worth pointing out that despite its description counterspell doesn't really interrupt the casting of a spell in terms of the mechanics, because you've essentially resolved the "casting" stage by the time counterspell triggers. What counterspell does is prevent you from resolving the original spell's effect(s), because the spell "fails". In game terms for other features a spell was either cast (successfully) or fails as the only two outcomes, for counter-counterspelling you've already finished the "casting" stage of the original spell, the counterspeller is trying to halt the resolution of any effect(s).
Admittedly it's not super well defined (the casting spells rules could do with more of a stepped structure, indeed I wish they'd do that with more of the game), but ultimately nothing in the rules states that you must fully resolve one spell before you can resolve another, nor should it as this would cause additional problems around spells with lingering effects, Twinned Spell and so-on.
In terms of the logic of counter-counterspelling, I prefer to think of counterspell as being a "magical bind"; basically the energy of your original spell has been unleashed, but someone else is opposing it with the energy of their counterspell (effectively blocking it) so if you do nothing they will cancel out and your spell will fail. By counterspelling yourself you are putting additional energy into your original spell in order to overwhelm that block (so the balance tips back in your favour, as long as nobody counter-counter-counterspells you 😉). Think about how magical duels are shown in the Harry Potter franchise, for example, where the two arcs of energy are pushing against each other until either one wins or both are forced to stop.
I don't care what RAW says. The best thing I've heard from Wizards of the Coast is "all the rules are optional" While I think some kind of opposed magic system would be cool and fun, I don't think a bunch of wizards countering each other's counterspells is.
I don't care what RAW says. The best thing I've heard from Wizards of the Coast is "all the rules are optional" While I think some kind of opposed magic system would be cool and fun, I don't think a bunch of wizards countering each other's counterspells is.
Well to be fair I'll bet a good amount of people don't really care about your homebrew version of counter spell either...
I mean it sounds.... Interesting... But it's homebrew.
Overall the question was about the RAW ability to do so and that's been answered as "yes you can unequivocally"
how many times in a campaign have you had a string of 3 or more counterspells? If it hasn't happened much then you're arguing against a problem that doesn't exist and making contingencies that ruin the fun for actual events. Also, if your party has that many people who can cast counterspell then that's a problematic dynamic already.
I don't care what RAW says. The best thing I've heard from Wizards of the Coast is "all the rules are optional" While I think some kind of opposed magic system would be cool and fun, I don't think a bunch of wizards countering each other's counterspells is.
I don't mean to seem rude, but you may be in the wrong sub-forum then; this is Rules & Game Mechanics which very much cares what RAW says. 😝
But I do not see the problem at all; unless you're vecna the archlichcounterspelling costs spell slots, and it's only guaranteed to work if you burn slots equal or higher than the spell being cast, so it's either expensive or risky. It's also worth noting that the DM is under no obligation to tell you what level a spell is cast at (including a counterspell), so when you counterspell a counterspell you don't actually know whether the original spell is going to automatically fail or not (yet), as you're trying to prevent the counterspell before it takes effect.
If five wizards get into a counterspell-off then they're burning 5-6 spell slots just to make one spell maybe succeed or fail; that's a hell of a lot of slots to burn, so the spell better be something really important (as in somebody's getting disintegrated).
It is a somatic-only spell with a casting time of 1 reaction - this almost sounds like it is the shortest ever hand wave for a smell; and one small deviation of "the weave" doesn't stop you finishing your cast on the original spell. (at least not according to raw).
I wouldn't allow that either. I don't think you can do anything else in the middle of casting a spell, never mind casting another spell.
On top of that, with the same logic, because counterspell says "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." the initial Counterspell would be over almost instantaneously so there is no way you could possibly react to it while it's in the process of casting.
would be over ALMOST instantaneously, the "almost" is enough time to counterspell it. don't go on a rules forum and say you don't care about the rules.
Just to summarize this thread, then, for those who are loathe to read through the entire 5 pages: I think everyone can agree that RAW permits a spellcaster who is casting a spell (such as Fireball requiring 1 action, for example), to use the spellcaster's reaction to cast counterspell against a counterspell cast by another spellcaster against the Fireball spell, thereby nullifying the first counterspell and thereby allowing the Fireball spell to take effect. There also seems to be agreement that a DM can either allow the second counterspell to go into effect automatically, or optionally, the DM can require an ability check under established RAW latitude with respect to ability checks in a given situation. RAW would not allow a DM to simply deny the ability of the second counterspell to take effect. Personally, I would require a DEX (Arcana) ability check for the second counterspell because while you're in the middle of casting a Fireball spell it would be "hard" to see another spellcaster's counterspell and also react in time to cast a counterspell to the counterspell, when the initial counterspell takes "a fraction of a second" to cast, you're still casting Fireball, and you must have practiced (Arcana) doing such a tricky move and have some dexterity and fast reaction ability to pull it off. The RAW by no means requires such an ability check, but it is entirely within a DM's discretion to require it and it would be RAW to do so.
Just to summarize this thread, then, for those who are loathe to read through the entire 5 pages: I think everyone can agree that RAW permits a spellcaster who is casting a spell (such as Fireball requiring 1 action, for example), to use the spellcaster's reaction to cast counterspell against a counterspell cast by another spellcaster against the Fireball spell, thereby nullifying the first counterspell and thereby allowing the Fireball spell to take effect. There also seems to be agreement that a DM can either allow the second counterspell to go into effect automatically, or optionally, the DM can require an ability check under established RAW latitude with respect to ability checks in a given situation. RAW would not allow a DM to simply deny the ability of the second counterspell to take effect. Personally, I would require a DEX (Arcana) ability check for the second counterspell because while you're in the middle of casting a Fireball spell it would be "hard" to see another spellcaster's counterspell and also react in time to cast a counterspell to the counterspell, when the initial counterspell takes "a fraction of a second" to cast, you're still casting Fireball, and you must have practiced (Arcana) doing such a tricky move and have some dexterity and fast reaction ability to pull it off. The RAW by no means requires such an ability check, but it is entirely within a DM's discretion to require it and it would be RAW to do so.
Just to summarize a bit more succinctly.
RAW and RAI, a character is permitted to use their reaction to counterspell any other spell (including an opposing counterspell) when they are in the middle of casting another spell UNLESS that other spell requires a bonus action to cast or the character previously cast a bonus action spell earlier on their turn. Casting a spell as a bonus action will prevent any use of counterspell for the rest of their turn.
As for ability checks.
"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."
RAW, counterspell does not have a chance of failure other than the mechanics described in the spell itself. The requirements for counterspell are having a reaction available, having an appropriate level spell slot, having the spell prepared and seeing a creature within 60' casting a spell (any further requirements are DM dependent not RAW). A DM can choose to implement a skill check when counterspell is being cast but that is strictly homebrew.
-------------------------------------
P.S. RAW is rules as written, the entire game is built on the premise of DM discretion and rulings. If every change a DM makes to the rules due to the fact that they are free to run things however they wish in their game is considered RAW because the rules give the DM the lattitude to do what they like then there is no point in discussing "RAW". In this case, the rules do not require a skill check for the stated actions involving casting counterspell while casting another spell. DMs can choose to require such a skill check but it is by no means RAW just because a DM can decide to call for skill checks for whatever they like.
A DM decides to call for an athletics check every 10' for characters walking normally. Is that RAW just because a DM can use skill checks for whatever they like? I'd say no personally. A DM can use skill checks whenever they want but the guidance is for things that have a chance of failure - in the rules, counterspell doesn't have any chance of failure in the stated situation. A DM can decide to implement such a chance of failure but doing so is not RAW just because a DM is free to require skill checks.
If you don't think it's RAW, read this(Page 12, top right). I know that you might houserule it, but it is according to the developers, Rules As Written.
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As DM I would still require an ability check to discern that your opponent was in the process of casting Counterspell which takes only an instant, and also react in time to cast your own counterspell as a reaction to such a fast spell. (see longer post above) Sure the RAW allows this, but the RAW still requires the Counterspell caster to "see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell." The DC would depend on the circumstances. It could be CON for concentration, or DEX to pause the fireball casting and quickly complete your own somatic gesture in time, or WIS to perceive the spell was being cast since it takes a fraction of a second to cast. My point is, successfully fulfilling the Counterspell prerequisites of seeing the casting of a reaction spell (as opposed to one that takes a full action), taking your reaction during another spell casting, and doing it fast enough, shouldn't be automatic.
You only get 1 reaction per round, so there should be no problem with allowing someone to use their reaction automatically in this situation.
Honestly, as DM I wouldn't let it happen. The way I see it you are doing more than just Somatic, you're channeling magic into a desired effect. You can't just begin a new channel in the middle of an old one. Regardless on limbs, Magic is mind-based and focused based in almost every incarnation in fantasy. Also I find the idea of two-spellcasters working together to protect eachother's spelllcasts appealing, and the idea of "who casts first wins" to be against the spirit and concept of counterspell itself.
There is no reason to prevent someone from using their reaction or their spells. You can of course cast counterspell if you meet all the requirements.
That's it. There is no requirement to not be casting other spells. Except maybe the bonus action spellcast rules, that might get in the way.
I got quotes!
And you haven't used a bonus spell yet. Because the text for bonus spell specifically disqualifies casting another spell on this turn. You could counterspell after your turn of course.
The reason I created this thread was to specifically point this out.
I cast healing word on my dying ally. Boss counterspells it. I can't counter his counterspell because it's still my turn (healing word is a bonus action spell which disqualifies me from casting any other spell, except a cantrip, on my turn).
It is a somatic-only spell with a casting time of 1 reaction - this almost sounds like it is the shortest ever hand wave for a smell; and one small deviation of "the weave" doesn't stop you finishing your cast on the original spell. (at least not according to raw).
Absolutely nothing says that's what you're doing if you counterspell a counterspell to protect your own cast
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I wouldn't allow that either. I don't think you can do anything else in the middle of casting a spell, never mind casting another spell.
On top of that, with the same logic, because counterspell says "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." the initial Counterspell would be over almost instantaneously so there is no way you could possibly react to it while it's in the process of casting.
Sure, using your reaction is fine, and sure it could be "automatic" that you could indeed say "I use my reaction to cast counterspell to negate the other caster's counterspell." If you have a reaction to use, you can use it of course. But again my point is that using your reaction to cast counterspell to the first counterspell should not automatically succeed, but should rather be based on your ability to see and react quick enough to succeed. You can cast it, but you'd need to roll an ability check to succeed in casting it in time. Casting a spell that requires 1 action would be easy to cast a counterspell against, because it takes a long time (relatively speaking) to cast, and counterspell is just the wave of a hand in some somatic gesture. But seeing the counterspell (a very quick spell, almost an instant to cast) and in turn reacting fast enough to cast it successfully would require some ability check. My point is that as a DM I would be within rights to require an ability check for the counterspell to a counterspell, due to the former's very short casting time. What kind of ability check would be up to the circumstances. If the counterspell were being cast by the same spellcaster whose spell the other counterspell is being foiled it would be very difficult. Probably still difficult, but less so, with a third spell caster seeing someone casting counterspell to foil an ally's spell.
I disagree. I think you could use your reaction to cast counterspell in the middle of casting a spell, because the RAW allows it. Casting a spell like fireball takes 1 action, and you still have a reaction in which to cast counterspell to negate a counterspell that has been cast and that you see in time to react. It is possible. Assuming you see the counterspell being cast (this depends on the situation), there would still be some way that you could possibly react to it while its in the process of casting. But my point as I outlined above is that casting a counterspell to a counterspell while in the middle of casting another spell should be exceedingly difficult to pull off successfully and in time. Counterspell enjoys automatic success against a 3rd level spell or below, and if 4th level or higher it requires an ability check using the spellcaster's spellcasting ability with DC being 10 plus the spell level. But that is dependent on 1) the spellcaster seeing the spell in the middle of casting; and 2) being fast enough to cast a spell using reaction when the spell you're trying to foil is also being cast as fast as a reaction. I would rule in a counterspell versus counterspell situation when the spellcaster is also in the middle of casting a spell, that the second counterspell would need an ability check. What kind of ability check?
CON: Maybe. But this has more to do with concentrating on the initial spell that's being foiled. So maybe not the right ability check to employ
WIS: Maybe. But this has to do with perceiving that the counterspell is being cast against your spell in time, and that is already assumed as part of the Counterspell definition (Counterspell requires 1 reaction "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell." Depending on the entire circumstance, a WIS perception check might be necessary to determine whether the spellcaster can "see" the casting of the very fast counterspell in action.
DEX: Maybe. This one makes the most sense to me. If you get to a DEX ability check you're already presuming the spellcaster has seen a creature within 60 feet casting a counterspell to try to foil the one they are casting at the moment. Perhaps the DM has assumed the spellcaster can see it, or they require a WIS perception check. But then you must react in time to stop the in-process counterspell from taking effect (instantaneous). A simple DEX ability check could be required. Perhaps the DM even gives some credit for an Arcana skill to add a person's proficiency bonus to it (DEX Arcana) if they have that skill. The DC in my view should be DC20. It is "hard" to do.
Counterspell isn't designed specifically for action spells. Forcing an ability check to perform a basic action that the character is highly experienced in is ridiculous. Being a DC 20 is even more so.
While a DM could rule this way if they want, nothing in the rules prevents a creature from counterspelling a counterspell against its own original spell; the only exception is if you have cast a bonus action spell (as you can only cast cantrips as actions on the same turn once you have, so this would prevent reaction casting on your turn).
It's also worth pointing out that despite its description counterspell doesn't really interrupt the casting of a spell in terms of the mechanics, because you've essentially resolved the "casting" stage by the time counterspell triggers. What counterspell does is prevent you from resolving the original spell's effect(s), because the spell "fails". In game terms for other features a spell was either cast (successfully) or fails as the only two outcomes, for counter-counterspelling you've already finished the "casting" stage of the original spell, the counterspeller is trying to halt the resolution of any effect(s).
Admittedly it's not super well defined (the casting spells rules could do with more of a stepped structure, indeed I wish they'd do that with more of the game), but ultimately nothing in the rules states that you must fully resolve one spell before you can resolve another, nor should it as this would cause additional problems around spells with lingering effects, Twinned Spell and so-on.
In terms of the logic of counter-counterspelling, I prefer to think of counterspell as being a "magical bind"; basically the energy of your original spell has been unleashed, but someone else is opposing it with the energy of their counterspell (effectively blocking it) so if you do nothing they will cancel out and your spell will fail. By counterspelling yourself you are putting additional energy into your original spell in order to overwhelm that block (so the balance tips back in your favour, as long as nobody counter-counter-counterspells you 😉). Think about how magical duels are shown in the Harry Potter franchise, for example, where the two arcs of energy are pushing against each other until either one wins or both are forced to stop.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
I don't care what RAW says. The best thing I've heard from Wizards of the Coast is "all the rules are optional" While I think some kind of opposed magic system would be cool and fun, I don't think a bunch of wizards countering each other's counterspells is.
Well to be fair I'll bet a good amount of people don't really care about your homebrew version of counter spell either...
I mean it sounds.... Interesting... But it's homebrew.
Overall the question was about the RAW ability to do so and that's been answered as "yes you can unequivocally"
I had no idea the idea of counter-countering was so controversial.
Let's be clear: it's RAW correct. It's RAI correct. The only justifications for ruling against it come down to personally disliking it.
how many times in a campaign have you had a string of 3 or more counterspells? If it hasn't happened much then you're arguing against a problem that doesn't exist and making contingencies that ruin the fun for actual events. Also, if your party has that many people who can cast counterspell then that's a problematic dynamic already.
I don't mean to seem rude, but you may be in the wrong sub-forum then; this is Rules & Game Mechanics which very much cares what RAW says. 😝
But I do not see the problem at all; unless you're vecna the archlich counterspelling costs spell slots, and it's only guaranteed to work if you burn slots equal or higher than the spell being cast, so it's either expensive or risky. It's also worth noting that the DM is under no obligation to tell you what level a spell is cast at (including a counterspell), so when you counterspell a counterspell you don't actually know whether the original spell is going to automatically fail or not (yet), as you're trying to prevent the counterspell before it takes effect.
If five wizards get into a counterspell-off then they're burning 5-6 spell slots just to make one spell maybe succeed or fail; that's a hell of a lot of slots to burn, so the spell better be something really important (as in somebody's getting disintegrated).
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
would be over ALMOST instantaneously, the "almost" is enough time to counterspell it. don't go on a rules forum and say you don't care about the rules.
Just to summarize this thread, then, for those who are loathe to read through the entire 5 pages: I think everyone can agree that RAW permits a spellcaster who is casting a spell (such as Fireball requiring 1 action, for example), to use the spellcaster's reaction to cast counterspell against a counterspell cast by another spellcaster against the Fireball spell, thereby nullifying the first counterspell and thereby allowing the Fireball spell to take effect. There also seems to be agreement that a DM can either allow the second counterspell to go into effect automatically, or optionally, the DM can require an ability check under established RAW latitude with respect to ability checks in a given situation. RAW would not allow a DM to simply deny the ability of the second counterspell to take effect. Personally, I would require a DEX (Arcana) ability check for the second counterspell because while you're in the middle of casting a Fireball spell it would be "hard" to see another spellcaster's counterspell and also react in time to cast a counterspell to the counterspell, when the initial counterspell takes "a fraction of a second" to cast, you're still casting Fireball, and you must have practiced (Arcana) doing such a tricky move and have some dexterity and fast reaction ability to pull it off. The RAW by no means requires such an ability check, but it is entirely within a DM's discretion to require it and it would be RAW to do so.
Just to summarize a bit more succinctly.
RAW and RAI, a character is permitted to use their reaction to counterspell any other spell (including an opposing counterspell) when they are in the middle of casting another spell UNLESS that other spell requires a bonus action to cast or the character previously cast a bonus action spell earlier on their turn. Casting a spell as a bonus action will prevent any use of counterspell for the rest of their turn.
As for ability checks.
"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."
RAW, counterspell does not have a chance of failure other than the mechanics described in the spell itself. The requirements for counterspell are having a reaction available, having an appropriate level spell slot, having the spell prepared and seeing a creature within 60' casting a spell (any further requirements are DM dependent not RAW). A DM can choose to implement a skill check when counterspell is being cast but that is strictly homebrew.
-------------------------------------
P.S. RAW is rules as written, the entire game is built on the premise of DM discretion and rulings. If every change a DM makes to the rules due to the fact that they are free to run things however they wish in their game is considered RAW because the rules give the DM the lattitude to do what they like then there is no point in discussing "RAW". In this case, the rules do not require a skill check for the stated actions involving casting counterspell while casting another spell. DMs can choose to require such a skill check but it is by no means RAW just because a DM can decide to call for skill checks for whatever they like.
A DM decides to call for an athletics check every 10' for characters walking normally. Is that RAW just because a DM can use skill checks for whatever they like? I'd say no personally. A DM can use skill checks whenever they want but the guidance is for things that have a chance of failure - in the rules, counterspell doesn't have any chance of failure in the stated situation. A DM can decide to implement such a chance of failure but doing so is not RAW just because a DM is free to require skill checks.
(I agree with everything above)
If you don't think it's RAW, read this(Page 12, top right). I know that you might houserule it, but it is according to the developers, Rules As Written.
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.